Red Light Cameras Coming to Johnson City, Possibly In 30 Days (Bristol: 2009, houses)

[jabogitlu]

JohnsonCityPress.com - Local News - Johnson City, TN

Vice Mayor Jeff Banyas said he appreciates the argument hat the cameras violate privacy but said the safety of Johnson City residents is the top priority. Lowry said those not wishing to take part in the traffic light program will just have to stop at traffic lights.

Ugh and bleah. This is bad news bears for those of us driving daily in the city. My favorite paragraph is quoted above. I nearly spit my water out when Banyas lied through his teeth. The article mentions 800 violations in a 24 hour period. I can practically see the dollar signs in the city's collective eyeballs.

The second sentence holds absolutely no meaning to me in the English language. Does anyone know WHAT he's talking about? Those of us not wishing to take part in "the program" (whatever that is? the cameras?) will have to "just stop" at traffic lights??? What???

[Ripshin]

Cameras are great. Have worked well in many cities.

[DubbleT]

Tongue in cheek there Jab. I know this is a pet peeve of yours, but he's simply pointing out the fact that the only folks that are going to be affected by the cameras are the ones who are blowing through the lights.

[TennPing]

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

Ugh and bleah. This is bad news bears for those of us driving daily in the city. My favorite paragraph is quoted above. I nearly spit my water out when Banyas lied through his teeth. The article mentions 800 violations in a 24 hour period. I can practically see the dollar signs in the city's collective eyeballs.

The second sentence holds absolutely no meaning to me in the English language. Does anyone know WHAT he's talking about? Those of us not wishing to take part in "the program" (whatever that is? the cameras?) will have to "just stop" at traffic lights??? What???

This is from a short search on the internet about red light cameras.

The red light cameras are about one thing and one thing only------money.
It is an easy way to rape the citizens and rake in the money.

The cameras have been turned off in at least two US cities as a result of the election on Tuesday. The citizens rebelled and brought the matter to a vote. The result is that the citizens won and the cameras are to be removed….and…..several council members and one mayor were defeated and lost their seats. The other mayor has been told by the citizens that he will be out at the next election. The red light cameras have torn the cities apart. It may take a long time for the anger to subside. The problem now is who will pay the charges to the private company since the mayor has signed a five year contract. The citizens say that it is the mayor’s responsibility….let him pay it. Also the police chief may now have a problem since he did a campaign ad to try to keep the cameras for the private company.

As budgets are being cut, law enforcement is looking for ways to raise money to keep their employees from being laid off.

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by DubbleT

Tongue in cheek there Jab. I know this is a pet peeve of yours, but he's simply pointing out the fact that the only folks that are going to be affected by the cameras are the ones who are blowing through the lights.

This isn't necessarily true. The concept of "due process" is also completely non-existent with these things.

In Montgomery County, MD, there's a 99.7% conviction rate on challenges of these tickets. See this very recent Washington Post article:

Controversial Speed Cameras in Montgomery County

This appears to be a consequence of anti-tax mania coupled with 'we like social spending' mania. It seems that the voters don't like paying for things (via taxes), but do like receiving things. As a result, governments come up with clever ways to make up the revenue shortfalls. These methods are often slimy and are oftentimes inefficient. The red light camera phenomenon is one of the most egregious examples.

I dislike the entire concept to begin with, because I generally don't trust robots to do work that requires subjective judgment. But more important is the "inefficiency" aspect of this. The governments do see a boon in revenues, but much more money is going into the hands of the private companies making these things. In essence, our tax collection system is being partially privatized and farmed out.

[jchometeam]

The biggest problem I have with them are the contracts signed with the vendors, the vendors get the great majority of the money generated.

As far as robots doing the work, there are usually officers that watch each infraction, and issue the citations. IF that is the case, and the person really ran the light, I have no problems with the cameras. I suspect the root of much of the problems people have with these cameras is that they want to be able to run red lights at will. I would imagine the same issues would be raised if an actual police car was at each intersection, all day long, watching for these violations.

In particular, I hope this cuts down on the times that 5 cars will go through a turning arrow after the light has gone red. People need to leave their houses a little earlier, calm down, and drive with some sense and patience.

[ljay42]

Originally Posted by jchometeam

I suspect the root of much of the problems people have with these cameras is that they want to be able to run red lights at will.


People need to leave their houses a little earlier, calm down, and drive with some sense and patience.

Dead on balls accurate. (It's an industry term).

Cameras in a store catching theft is ok but cameras at an intersection catching illegal and dangerous activities is unjust? This is a revenue enhancement for the city and, considering the drivers here, I think it's a good one.

[rccrain]

The motion passed with four commissioners voting in favor.

Who were the four?

Horrible decision, makes me want to move to Bristol.

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by ljay42

Dead on balls accurate. (It's an industry term).

Cameras in a store catching theft is ok but cameras at an intersection catching illegal and dangerous activities is unjust? This is a revenue enhancement for the city and, considering the drivers here, I think it's a good one.

Cameras in stores are monitored by security personnel and mostly used as a way to have evidence in the event of a *loss*. They are not used as a method of creating stealth revenues for companies.

I've never intentionally run a red light in my entire life. I'm about as defensive of a driver as you will ever find. To suggest that everyone who dislikes this is 'running a bunch of red lights' is just plain ignorance.

This is a *TAX*. It is a stealth tax. It is a tax, where most of the revenues aren't going to the state --- rather they are being put in private hands. This is corruption plain and simple, if you ask me. Tax revenues should not be farmed out to private corporations.

If you trust robots to ticket you with 100% accuracy and you are completely OK with about 75% of your fines going to a private corporation, then you should have no problem with this. For the rest of us, we have some major issues with these things.

[ljay42]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

To suggest that everyone who dislikes this is 'running a bunch of red lights' is just plain ignorance.

Neither I nor the person I agreed with said that..go back and read.

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

This is a *TAX*. It is a stealth tax. It is a tax, where most of the revenues aren't going to the state --- rather they are being put in private hands. This is corruption plain and simple, if you ask me. Tax revenues should not be farmed out to private corporations.

That entire statement is ridiculous.


edit to add: As far as the ticketing...I don't expect to get one so that really doesn't bother me. As to the revenue split, that's up to the city/county to negotiate the rates just as kingsport is doing now. Hopefully they can negotiate a better split this time.